I'll be taking a break - should have a few good posts coming soon, though!
In the meantime, check out all of the great articles Gizmodo has. It's definitely one of my favorite sites to go to waste a little time :)
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
Apple Bullet Points
Just a quick entry today with some interesting bullet points from Apple's 4th Quarter Earnings Call. (Read some of the notes taken from TechCrunch)
- Apple is shipping more iPads than Macs.
- For the entire year, they have sold 40 million iPhones and 7.5 million iPads.
- There are over 30,000 iPad applications available.
- Steve Jobs doesn't like 7" tablets, which means the rumored iPad Mini is most likely nonexistent. Says Jobs, "The reason we wouldn’t make a 7-inch tablet isn’t because we wouldn’t want to hit a certain price point, we just think it’s too small for the software." Boo.
Anyway, some interesting bullet points, not only for those who are thinking of implementing iPads into the archives/special collections, but also for those who are digitizing collections to be put on the Web. Mobile sites formatted for iPhones or other devices are becoming more essential. Just look at those numbers!
- Apple is shipping more iPads than Macs.
- For the entire year, they have sold 40 million iPhones and 7.5 million iPads.
- There are over 30,000 iPad applications available.
- Steve Jobs doesn't like 7" tablets, which means the rumored iPad Mini is most likely nonexistent. Says Jobs, "The reason we wouldn’t make a 7-inch tablet isn’t because we wouldn’t want to hit a certain price point, we just think it’s too small for the software." Boo.
Anyway, some interesting bullet points, not only for those who are thinking of implementing iPads into the archives/special collections, but also for those who are digitizing collections to be put on the Web. Mobile sites formatted for iPhones or other devices are becoming more essential. Just look at those numbers!
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Eyes of the Beholder
After launching in late 2009, the Google Goggles app has expanded to the iPhone. Google Goggles is an innovative new take on visual searching, that allows users to take a picture of art- and text-based images and search the web.
Here's an intro that was created by Google back in December 09, when it hit the Android mobile market:
Though it's not useful for 3-d objects, like a computer mouse, as demonstrated by IntoMobile, it is pretty good for book covers, logos, product packaging and labels, bar codes, and artwork. (CNET's Web Crawler blog compared how the app differs between the Android and iPhone versions, coming to the conclusion that they are pretty much the same, save a few bells and whistles.)
I've spent the last few days thinking of how this app could be useful in the archives. There are currently search engines that use an image as the actual query, such as TinEye. This browser-based site takes either an uploaded image or image URL and searches the web for the same or edited versions (Here's a demo video). This method is useful if you are searching who has used your own images for their sites (and to determine if they have paid the prescribed licensing fees!) or are trying to find more information on an unknown photo that may be somewhere else. However, this requires that the image in question is already in digital format and that you are right in front of your computer. Google Goggles allows you to take a quick, low-res digital photo of the item in question and instantly gives you the search results, saving you a step.
In the past, I've found random artwork in a collection where I've had no idea what it is and who it was by. In the past, searching words like "woman+harp+blindfold+painting" may give me a variety of artworks. But, with an app like Google Goggles, I can take a quick picture of it and it gives me search results for Watt's Hope painting.
Overall, the main attraction of this app is its portability. Sometimes, when at an on-site appraisal, it may be difficult to know exactly whether a piece of artwork or an item with a vintage logo may be worth something. Perhaps this app can make the decision a bit easier!
Here's an intro that was created by Google back in December 09, when it hit the Android mobile market:
Though it's not useful for 3-d objects, like a computer mouse, as demonstrated by IntoMobile, it is pretty good for book covers, logos, product packaging and labels, bar codes, and artwork. (CNET's Web Crawler blog compared how the app differs between the Android and iPhone versions, coming to the conclusion that they are pretty much the same, save a few bells and whistles.)
I've spent the last few days thinking of how this app could be useful in the archives. There are currently search engines that use an image as the actual query, such as TinEye. This browser-based site takes either an uploaded image or image URL and searches the web for the same or edited versions (Here's a demo video). This method is useful if you are searching who has used your own images for their sites (and to determine if they have paid the prescribed licensing fees!) or are trying to find more information on an unknown photo that may be somewhere else. However, this requires that the image in question is already in digital format and that you are right in front of your computer. Google Goggles allows you to take a quick, low-res digital photo of the item in question and instantly gives you the search results, saving you a step.
In the past, I've found random artwork in a collection where I've had no idea what it is and who it was by. In the past, searching words like "woman+harp+blindfold+painting" may give me a variety of artworks. But, with an app like Google Goggles, I can take a quick picture of it and it gives me search results for Watt's Hope painting.
Overall, the main attraction of this app is its portability. Sometimes, when at an on-site appraisal, it may be difficult to know exactly whether a piece of artwork or an item with a vintage logo may be worth something. Perhaps this app can make the decision a bit easier!
Monday, October 11, 2010
Playing Tag in the Stacks
Many of you may know what the above image is. QR codes, or Quick Response bar codes, have become quite the rage over the past few years. They've been placed on products, advertisements, blogs, and art. In fact, at a gas station yesterday, I saw a QR code on an advertisement that said "Find them all and collect the points!" They can be URL hyperlinks, text based information, phone numbers, email addresses, Google Map locations, or any other kind of data. These codes are read through several different methods, the most popular being cell phone cameras (also known as mobile tagging). The basic idea is that an individual uses a QR app and their camera to "scan" the code, and then can be taken to a website which then gives them a wealth of information. EDUCAUSE has a fantastic PDF "7 Things You Should Know About QR Codes" which not only gives information, but also a great example of using QR codes in an exhibition-like setting.
There have been so many blogs, articles, and websites talking about how QR codes and mobile tagging can enhance user accessibility and experiences with a collection, such as using the codes as exhibition captions. In particular, Dan Hooker wrote an interesting article back in 2009 about use in libraries. In it, he touches on QR code use in catalog records, such as in University of Huddersfield's OPAC records (example: Managing Information Technology in Secondary Schools). But, there are a number of other ways to use QR codes as internal support in archives.
In my experience, I have noticed that there may be several databases or catalogs that indicate location of archival materials. However, there is a bit of a breakdown if 1) the box in question is not in its proper location, 2) the box location database, catalog, or finding aid has incorrect or incomplete information, and 3) the actual item numbers within the box or container are incorrect or incomplete.
With so many finding aids being converted into EAD and being completely accessible online, this is a perfect situation to use QR codes to link between the item (or box, depending on the level of description your institution requires) and the finding aid or catalog. QR codes are printable on regular pieces of paper. You can cut them out, include them on the box or folder or item, and have the code link back to the finding aid or other digital catalog record in order to have instant access in the stacks.
Additionally, when archival items are pulled for exhibits or patrons, instead of writing locations down on the back or relying on the patron to put folders in the correct boxes, printing out QR codes and clipping or taping them to folders can solve many potential problems. Not only will it save time for researchers and patrons, but it will save time for the archivist and (most likely) the student employee who is returning the items to the stacks.
Reading these QR codes are as simple as purchasing a 4th generation iPod touch for an organization (starting at $299, though some institutions offer an educational discount for $229) and installing one of several different free QR reader/scanner apps (CNET reviews 4 best QR code apps for iPhone and iPod Touch). You can also use an Android powered phone or mobile device that has a camera and can access the App Market for any of their compatible QR apps. Keep in mind, if you are linking to a web-version of your finding aid, your campus should have wireless Internet access in order to use the iPod. Otherwise, your iPhone, Android phone, or other mobile device that is on a 3G or 4G network will be fine.
For so long, libraries and archives were given the RFID speech that these chips were the answer to so many problems. But, the cost of RFID is high and the amount of maintenance it would require in a large collection is unfathomable. QR codes can be printed as items are pulled and, though they are owned and patented by the Denso Corporation, they are free of license restriction and codes can be generated and used without any cost. In an economic time where organizational cutbacks continue to challenge information centers, what's better than free?
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Freeviews - Image Hosting and Sharing
Freeview: (noun) A review of my favorite free websites, programs, and applications. Read my first freeview on file sharing!
3rd place:
Picasa is Google's photo sharing program. You can download a client for your computer or you can use just the web version. I like Picasa because I am HUGE Google product user (Blogger, Gmail, Google Calendar, iGoogle Homepage, Google Earth... You name it, I use it!). It's nice that when I blog and upload a picture through Blogger, it is automatically hosted in a blog-specific Picasa album for future use. There is a slideshow feature, which is essential these days for a photo sharing site, but it lacks any customization. There is only one layout choice and in order to obtain the embed code, it takes 4 or 5 clicks through a navigational path that is clunky and complex. Additionally, when you upload an image through Blogger, it is automatically put into your Picasa album, even if you've never used or wanted to use the site. It seems a bit like cheating to gain users.
2nd place:
Flickr, the Yahoo based photo site, has gained notoriety within the archives/library world with the Library of Congress' Photostream. It's very easy to use and since it's so popular, there is a bevy of other users that are already on the site who can browse other photostreams, allowing for additional access points into your collection. Plus, they allow geotagging, which is a pretty cool feature. However, keeping in mind this is a review of the free version, there are so many limitations. The free version only gives you 100 MB of space per month and only the 200 most recently uploaded images will appear. There are embed-able slideshows, but like Picasa, it isn't very customizable.
See what you think: Archives Reboot on Flickr
1st place:
Photobucket is a great site to use that gives a lot of bang for a $0.00 price tag. Granted, like Flickr, there is a Pro version that gives even more, but this review is for the free version. Not only does Photobucket allow for slideshows that are easily manipulated and completely customizable (they offer over 75 different templates). There is also a built-in image editor that gives you the option to add several different effects or fix various problems, like color. Photobucket also keeps statistics on your photos, both as individual photos and as an album, allowing you to track which of your images are most popular, even if they've been embedded into a third party site, like a digital catalog on your institution's site. Unlike Flickr, you don't have to have a site-specific account logon. If your organization already has a Facebook account, you can log in with that! It's always nice to cut down on various usernames and passwords. For the free version, you get 500 MB of space (overall, versus the 100 MB per month with Flickr) and 10 GB/month of bandwidth. You also get a custom URL for the root album and the video uploading limits are 10 minutes long, as opposed to 90 seconds with Flickr. The only deterrent to using Photobucket is the annoying advertisements. Many ads are videos, so sounds sometimes come on when you use the actual Photobucket site. However, if you are using it merely as hosting in order to embed the images/videos onto another site, there are no ads that will appear.
Image Hosting and Sharing
Beyond the obvious advantages of having archival images on the Internet to increase access and discoverability into your collections, hosting images on the net is the perfect way to manipulate simple webpages to look more interesting or to give more detail on a specific item. Basic HTML tags can enhance a traditional text-based record with a visual description through photo slideshows or clickable images.3rd place:
Picasa is Google's photo sharing program. You can download a client for your computer or you can use just the web version. I like Picasa because I am HUGE Google product user (Blogger, Gmail, Google Calendar, iGoogle Homepage, Google Earth... You name it, I use it!). It's nice that when I blog and upload a picture through Blogger, it is automatically hosted in a blog-specific Picasa album for future use. There is a slideshow feature, which is essential these days for a photo sharing site, but it lacks any customization. There is only one layout choice and in order to obtain the embed code, it takes 4 or 5 clicks through a navigational path that is clunky and complex. Additionally, when you upload an image through Blogger, it is automatically put into your Picasa album, even if you've never used or wanted to use the site. It seems a bit like cheating to gain users.
2nd place:
Flickr, the Yahoo based photo site, has gained notoriety within the archives/library world with the Library of Congress' Photostream. It's very easy to use and since it's so popular, there is a bevy of other users that are already on the site who can browse other photostreams, allowing for additional access points into your collection. Plus, they allow geotagging, which is a pretty cool feature. However, keeping in mind this is a review of the free version, there are so many limitations. The free version only gives you 100 MB of space per month and only the 200 most recently uploaded images will appear. There are embed-able slideshows, but like Picasa, it isn't very customizable.
See what you think: Archives Reboot on Flickr
1st place:
Photobucket is a great site to use that gives a lot of bang for a $0.00 price tag. Granted, like Flickr, there is a Pro version that gives even more, but this review is for the free version. Not only does Photobucket allow for slideshows that are easily manipulated and completely customizable (they offer over 75 different templates). There is also a built-in image editor that gives you the option to add several different effects or fix various problems, like color. Photobucket also keeps statistics on your photos, both as individual photos and as an album, allowing you to track which of your images are most popular, even if they've been embedded into a third party site, like a digital catalog on your institution's site. Unlike Flickr, you don't have to have a site-specific account logon. If your organization already has a Facebook account, you can log in with that! It's always nice to cut down on various usernames and passwords. For the free version, you get 500 MB of space (overall, versus the 100 MB per month with Flickr) and 10 GB/month of bandwidth. You also get a custom URL for the root album and the video uploading limits are 10 minutes long, as opposed to 90 seconds with Flickr. The only deterrent to using Photobucket is the annoying advertisements. Many ads are videos, so sounds sometimes come on when you use the actual Photobucket site. However, if you are using it merely as hosting in order to embed the images/videos onto another site, there are no ads that will appear.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Is WebP a threat to JPEG?
There has been an awful lot of chatter lately about Google's new file format WebP (pronounced "weppy"). Let's break this down a little bit.
WebP is faster and smaller than JPEG.
The WebP gallery shows examples where they are 10% - 60% smaller in size than JPEG. This means that not only is the user saving valuable server space and hosting costs, but webpages that feature WebP images will also load faster and save bandwidth. With the advent of mobile websites and with more users utilizing cellular 3G networks rather than T1 lines, faster and leaner webpages are a must. Additionally, suggesting a way to reduce your organization's server space could earn you an Employee of the Year award.
TIFF is still the standard for archival master images.
However, many institutions and organizations have an arsenal of JPEGs for several purposes: digital exhibitions, gallery images, low-res teaser images, etc. JPEG is lossy. WebP is lossy. The last thing you want is your master digital files to lose quality. In terms of digital longevity and permanency, TIFF is definitely the way to go (or PNG or GIF or PDF). WebP is not trying to replace this.
JPEG2000 is still dragging feet- Will WebP take off?
The JPEG has been around for nearly 20 years and has been the standard for basic, accessible images almost as long. JPEG2000 was created 10 years ago and is smaller in size and better compression. But, why hasn't it lifted off? It's a better file format than JPEG, for sure. Maybe it's the tangle of patents surrounding the format. Maybe it's that browsers can't handle them. Or, maybe it's that it doesn't play well with many other applications. Though some may think the future may be grim for the WebP, the overall idea of less bandwidth and space being used may outweigh any problems. Already, applications, like Pixelmator, are beginning to integrate WebP formats. Maybe it's just a matter of time?
WebP is faster and smaller than JPEG.
The WebP gallery shows examples where they are 10% - 60% smaller in size than JPEG. This means that not only is the user saving valuable server space and hosting costs, but webpages that feature WebP images will also load faster and save bandwidth. With the advent of mobile websites and with more users utilizing cellular 3G networks rather than T1 lines, faster and leaner webpages are a must. Additionally, suggesting a way to reduce your organization's server space could earn you an Employee of the Year award.
TIFF is still the standard for archival master images.
However, many institutions and organizations have an arsenal of JPEGs for several purposes: digital exhibitions, gallery images, low-res teaser images, etc. JPEG is lossy. WebP is lossy. The last thing you want is your master digital files to lose quality. In terms of digital longevity and permanency, TIFF is definitely the way to go (or PNG or GIF or PDF). WebP is not trying to replace this.
JPEG2000 is still dragging feet- Will WebP take off?
The JPEG has been around for nearly 20 years and has been the standard for basic, accessible images almost as long. JPEG2000 was created 10 years ago and is smaller in size and better compression. But, why hasn't it lifted off? It's a better file format than JPEG, for sure. Maybe it's the tangle of patents surrounding the format. Maybe it's that browsers can't handle them. Or, maybe it's that it doesn't play well with many other applications. Though some may think the future may be grim for the WebP, the overall idea of less bandwidth and space being used may outweigh any problems. Already, applications, like Pixelmator, are beginning to integrate WebP formats. Maybe it's just a matter of time?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)